and the most recent CT scan from 10/17:HEPATOBILIARY: Fatty liver. Tiny low-density too small to characterize in segment 8 is unchanged. A tiny low density in segment 7 is not visible on prior cross sectional imaging.

How come the other spots were deemed cysts, but they didn't write anything about this new one? I guess they have to watch it over a few months to be able to say it's a cyst (if in fact it is a cyst)?

Because we know one of the two masses are definitely cancerous, the plan is for resection after 4 rounds of chemo. The surgeon says that they could shrink enough to be candidates for ablation but husband and I actually just spoke about that today as may not be a great idea if we want to know the histopathology of the tumor #2.

I think that whether a mass is cyst compared to a tumor, etc., depends on different properties that they show on the images. It gets pretty technical, from what I have read, and whether the "impression" of the radiologist is accurate or not depends on their level of skill and experience. I encourage anyone who has questions about their scan results to get a second opinion from Mass General Hospital. You don't have to go to Boston for this. see http://www.massgeneral.org/imaging/serv ... inion.aspx

mpbser wrote:Bina,I think that whether a mass is cyst compared to a tumor, etc., depends on different properties that they show on the images. It gets pretty technical, from what I have read, and whether the "impression" of the radiologist is accurate or not depends on their level of skill and experience. I encourage anyone who has questions about their scan results to get a second opinion from Mass General Hospital. You don't have to go to Boston for this. see http://www.massgeneral.org/imaging/serv ... inion.aspx

AND just to add on here :It also has 100% to do with the RIGHT folks, choosing the RIGHT imaging modality ... in order to get the RIGHT results for your individual situation !!!!!

experience and pro-activity are REQUIREDBUTT ...... getting the RIGHT information, upon which the Docs base their decisions is = ABSOLUTE !

More imaging and more "eyes on my SitRep" = why I am here now !

WORD... !!!!! Best wishesCRguy

(( addendum : I have been taking and reviewing xrays, ultrasounds, CTs, PET scans and MRIs for my patients for the past 36 years ....AS well as being a patient having all of those ...done on ME for the past 10+ yearsEVERY imaging modality has its strengths and weaknessesthe RIGHT Docs will choose the best imaging and then proceed. IF there are inconsistencies or irregularities, they need to get more info.IF they do NOT ..... get another Doc. ))

Caregiver x 3Stage IV A rectal cancer/lung met10 Year survivormy life is an ongoing totally randomized UNcontrolled experiment with N=1 !Review of my Journey so far

Don't want to get too technical but CT and MRI are different modalities with different strengths and weaknesses. MRI sequences can characterize soft tissue in ways that CT cannot. Things that are "low density" on CT can be confirmed to be cysts on MRI (with some exceptions). Smaller than 1 cm, it can still be "nonspecific." CT imaging can be acquired at sub millimeter thickness and MRI usually cannot (in practical terms). Anything less than 10 mm on a CT is technically too small to characterize, but statistically they are usually cysts. PET scan usually needs something to be 8 mm or larger (there are exceptions).

Some things have to be watched over time. I don't like it either. I wish I could know everything now.

When it comes to imaging, each modality has a role to play. One is not better than another at everything. And sometimes you need all of them put together to make sense of it all. And then other times you have all that and you still have to just follow up over time.

Hoping they are simple benign cysts and will be nothing to worry about!

"Punctate 2 mm hyperintense T2 foci are seen within hepatic segment 7 and 8 corresponding to low density lesions on prior CT exam. Lesions are much too small to characterize, however are suggestive of small cysts. Continued follow up can be obtained. No enhancing hepatic mass."

Doctor didn't say much except "just go enjoy your day" and when I asked him if he would recommend a follow up he said just because I'm young he would do a CT scan in 6 months.

Just to chime in again.... Every liver surgeon my husband and I have spoken to prefers MRIs. I've done some reading on the topic and it appears to be the gold standard for liver examination.

On another thread, (or here... I can't recall) none of my husband's CT scans picked up anything on his liver but he has two liver masses (one cancerous and the other likely a cyst) so we will be monitoring via MRI.

Liver protocol CT and MRI have different strengths and weaknesses. Feel reassured that a CT in 6 months will have higher spatial resolution than MRI and can thus evaluate change in size a bit better.

If you ever have questions, you could discuss it with the radiologist. I defer surgical decisions to the surgeons, chemo decisions to the oncologist, radiation decisions to the radiation oncologist and imaging decisions to the radiologist. Although the radiologist is a bit less accessible, they do still practice direct patient care.

I think your MRI report is reassuring and it's time for a glass of wine!

CRguy wrote:(( addendum : I have been taking and reviewing xrays, ultrasounds, CTs, PET scans and MRIs for my patients for the past 36 years ....AS well as being a patient having all of those ...done on ME for the past 10+ yearsEVERY imaging modality has its strengths and weaknessesthe RIGHT Docs will choose the best imaging and then proceed. IF there are inconsistencies or irregularities, they need to get more info.IF they do NOT ..... get another Doc. ))

CRguy, what is your background that you have been reviewing all these modalities for decades? I am curious!